Compromise: The Original Sin


by Don Hank

Compromise. It sounds sweet, harmonious and Christian.

There are essentially 2 kinds of people: those who believe men are capable of forging their own fate, and those who know that the forger of all fates is not human, but divine.

In an interview with the American Prospect, Jimmy Carter, one of the former kind, once said:

I think almost all Christians would conclude that whenever there is an inevitable altercation — say, between a husband and a wife, or a father and a child, or within a given community, or between two nations (including our own) — we should make every effort to resolve those differences which arise in life through peaceful means.

What man is not eager to please his wife? What gift would he refuse her if she pleaded demurely with batting eyelashes? Who would not compromise with her for the sake of conjugal harmony?

It was in a spirit of sweetness and gentle accommodation that Adam hammered out the compromise with Eve and their Satanic cohort—the only three inhabitants of the garden with the God-given gift of speech. It was a unanimous, compassionate decision to eat the forbidden fruit, and it came about “through peaceful means.” How could that be wrong? By Jimmy’s reasoning, it wasn’t.

Yet that compromise was a forbidden one. First, the garden dwellers hadn’t invited God, the only one whose vote counts, to the bargaining table. Second, they had invited God’s enemy, Satan, to that table.

Likewise it was in a spirit of compromise that scrupled Christians, whose enlightened consciences cried out against slavery and who debated passionately against it, ultimately set their hands to a document that enshrined in law that foulest of all institutions for what was to amount then to only 20 more years. After all, God would overlook those mere 20 years of evil, wouldn’t he?  But they turned into many more years. Because compromise is self-perpetuating. It’s like spoiling a child. It can’t be undone.

And in 1861 God collected the first payment.

America has never stopped paying the price of that compromise.

It was our original sin. God was left out of the bargain. His words: there is a way that seemeth right unto man but the end thereof are the ways of death, had been ignored.

It was in a spirit of compromise that Jimmy Carter sat at the table with Arafat and bargained away Israel’s rights.  They weren’t his to give away either.

That’s why these weren’t Christian acts. They were in fact foolish misdeeds perpetrated by a weak and foolish man under color of Christian kindness with total disregard for the long-term consequences.

In like manner, Jimmy sat at a bargaining table with Omar Torrijos and gave away your canal and mine—a canal in which he had not invested a penny of his money or a drop of his sweat—to Central American bureaucrats who persuaded him the canal would pass into the hands of the Panamanian people. It passed immediately and irretrievably into the hands of the bureaucrats. And that is where it has stayed. Nothing has changed for the Panamanians, except that the American military, a significant source of income—to say nothing of security—is now gone. And the region is less secure than ever. Neither that people nor the American people were present at the bargaining table. Our interests were not represented.

Likewise, it was in a spirit of Christian kindness that Carter bargained away Taiwan and thereby compromised the safety of millions of people who were our most loyal friends and allies. Taiwan was our friend, not his to sell either.

It is not Christian to give away other people’s stuff. Yet weak and foolish men do it under color of Christian kindness to hide their weakness and fear of confrontation.

Convinced that he was being Christ-like, Jimmy Carter habitually tampered with delicately balanced political eco-systems that he couldn’t begin to understand. Blindly believing that he was doing God’s will by compromising, he had no inkling of the dire consequences of his actions. Yet in his book “Our Endangered Values,” Jimmy, whose cult-like obsession with Christian compromise never deserted him in his official capacity, complains that Americans nowadays aren’t properly separating church and state! But it is precisely Jimmy’s devotion to the cult of Christian gentleness, precisely in the public arena where he decries religious motivation of any kind, coupled with his negligence of the command to be wise, that has caused him to fail so miserably as president and as a human being.

Today another Christian sits in the White House and, in a spirit of Christian compromise, works hard to give away your sovereignty and mine. He too is convinced that his attitude toward his bargaining partners, including Vicente Fox and Teddy Kennedy, whose motives are purely political at best, is thoroughly Christian because he thinks he owes them something of ours. He interprets the Master’s words to mean “turn your people’s cheek to the enemy.”

But it’s not his to give away. It’s your sovereignty and mine. We weren’t represented at the table.

President Bush sums up his befuddled reasoning in favor of amnesty with the words: it’s good for our soul, thus portraying himself not only as our intercessor before God, but in fact forcing others, kicking and screaming, into the kingdom of Heaven with him. That is forbidden by the Master, of course, whose message to the world is that the decision is a personal one, entirely up to the individual.

We could have seen it coming.

Had this same man not sat at the table with Teddy Kennedy and hammered out a bargain that removed the states’ constitutionally protected oversight of education and placed it in the hands of the central government?

Had he not unflinchingly signed into law the feminist-backed VAWA that explicitly denies males equal protection from domestic violence under the law?

Had he not docilely compromised your First Amendment rights away when he signed McCain-Feingold without a whimper of protest?

Thus, having a Christian at the helm of a nation is a mixed blessing. While public sweetness and harmony may seem to highlight such an administration, the price in terms of security and national integrity may be greater than we can afford.

We now know what we should have from the start: that George W. Bush was not a set-him-and-forget-him president. There is no such person. How foolish to think there was. How foolish to think that the commander-in-chief of the armed forces was also somehow the commander-in-chief of the voting public. The tail was wagging the dog.

What Jimmy Carter, President Bush and our Founders all taught us is this:

Jesus got it right when he said “be wise as serpents.” He knew that foolishness could be the biggest pitfall for Christians and that eternal vigilance is needed if we are to survive as a people.

Christian foolishness of the kind we are examining here can be defined as initially avoiding a little pain and conflict for the Christian in ways that cause foreseeable ongoing and excruciating pain for others in the future.

It is American Christianity’s most grievous sin, the sin of compromise, in the negligently naïve belief that the person on the other side of the bargaining table has the same high ideals as you and wants the best for all concerned. To believe this is to ignore the teaching that men are born into sin. This, coupled with the belief that anyone other than a white Christian heterosexual male who cries “victim” is a victim, is a recipe for total disaster.

We the people need to get it right soon, too, and start following this least-heeded of all of Christ’s commandments. Be wise as serpents. That means not letting other Christians make your decisions for you. It means not picking a leader and blindly following him in the irresponsible belief that he is “God’s man.” Because your right to choose is also your right to demand compliance with your Constitution. It means recognizing that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, that none is righteous, no not one. It means recognizing that God’s man is you when you follow his commandments, and when it comes to civil duties, it means keeping up with current events, subscribing to newsletters and reading web pages written by wise people, like Dr. James Kennedy, Don Wildman, Phyllis Schlafly and Lou Sheldon, that alert you to the issues. It is your country to keep, not your leaders’ to give away.

The serpent in the garden, urging Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, had said: surely you will not die.

But God had said: You will surely die. His was the only vote that counted, and he made good his promise.

He still does.

Therefore, America, I am telling you the truth: If you do not gain wisdom soon, you will surely die!

copyright© Laigle’s Forum


Federal Judge Refuses to Release Homosexual Group from Philadelphia Eleven Lawsuit

In a message dated 5/27/06 11:17:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, writes:

                                                                                            REPENT AMERICA




PHILADELPHIA – On May 26, 2006, United States District Court Judge Lawrence F. Stengel issued a 17-page opinion denying Philly Pride Presents’ Motion to Dismiss, which sought to release the group from a lawsuit filed on behalf of the Philadelphia Eleven. The lawsuit, in part, declares that Philly Pride conspired with the Philadelphia Police to deprive eleven Christians of their constitutional rights at the group’s homosexual celebration on October 10, 2004.

The lawsuit was filed on October 21, 2005 against the City of Philadelphia, Philly Pride Presents, and others for the arrest of six men and five women with Repent America as they attempted to minister the Gospel of Jesus Christ at Philly Pride’s annual homosexual event called “OutFest”. Prior to their arrests, the Christians were surrounded by a militant mob of homosexuals who identified themselves as the “Pink Angels”. This disorderly group held up large, pink styrofoam
boards, shouted, and loudly blew whistles at the Christians. Police refused to address the disorderly group, but instead, arrested the Christians. After spending 21 hours in jail, they were charged with a host of crimes and under Pennsylvania’s “hate crimes” law, which, if convicted, could have resulted in up to 47 years in prison and $90,000 in fines each. The charges were later dismissed as being without merit.

During the criminal proceedings, Chief Inspector James Tiano, who is the Philadelphia Police Department’s “liaison to the gay and lesbian community,” testified that police met with the “OutFest” organizers 3 or 4 times before the event and discussed, among other things, tactics to prevent Repent America from having access to the event. Additionally, police video shows Chief Inspector Tiano addressing a group of officers to inform them that the “religious right” was
coming, and that the “Pink Angels” would be interfering with them. “Chief Inspector Tiano’s comments seem to make it clear that the City conspired with the organizers of ‘OutFest’ to ensure that Repent America would not have access to the event to exercise their protected rights under both our state and federal Constitutions,” stated Ted Hoppe, attorney for the Philadelphia Eleven.

In Judge Stengel’s opinion denying Philly Pride’s Motion to Dismiss, he wrote: “In this case, Plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts to infer a conspiracy between the Philly Pride Defendants and the other defendants. The Complaint alleges a number of facts sufficient to support an inference of a conspiracy to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights.” However, at this point, Judge Stengel cited that he cannot conclude on the existence of a conspiracy without further documentation.

“We are most pleased with the Judge Stengel’s decision to deny Philly Pride Presents’ Motion to Dismiss, and look forward to the discovery phase of the case,” stated Repent America director Michael Marcavage. “The discovery process will afford us the opportunity to conduct depositions in order to further investigate evidence and document the conspiratorial actions between Philly Pride and the Philadelphia Police to violate our civil rights,” Marcavage continued.

“The City’s action at the ‘OutFest’ event demonstrated a clear hostility toward Repent America and the content of their message,” stated Ted Hoppe. “Through this lawsuit, we hope to send a message to the City of Philadelphia, its police force, as well as Philly Pride Presents, that they do not have the right to interfere with Repent America’s constitutionally protected rights to free speech and free exercise of religion simply because they do not agree with the content of their message,” Hoppe concluded.


Resources (.pdf format):
“OutFest” Federal Lawsuit (
Judge Stengel’s 17-page Opinion (

Repent America is an evangelistic ministry based in the birthplace of America, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Go to:


Senate Immigration Plan Biggest Power Grab Since the Great Society



by Jim Kouri, CPP


The top sponsor of the House of Representative’s immigration bill on Friday fiercely rejected a the proposal to give millions of illegal immigrants a “get out of jail free card” and a direct path to US citizenship. Many Washington insiders believe the Senate bill will receive a cold reception from the GOP-led House.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), who heads the Judiciary Committee, called the bill the Senate passed on Thursday an “amnesty” that the House would not accept. Other House Republicans — including Rep. Peter King, Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee –say they will not pass any bill that rewards lawbreaking.

“I reject the spin that the senators have been putting on their proposal,” Rep. Sensenbrenner said at a news conference on Friday. “It is amnesty.”

The Senate on Thursday passed an immigration overhaul that some claim is the biggest power-grab in that body’s history.  The bill border security and enforcement measures that are less stringent than that which is contained in the House bill, coupled with a guest worker program, social security benefits, wage controls that few American citizens enjoy, and a plan that would give many of the 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants in the country a chance to become citizens.

President George W. Bush, who strongly supports a guest worker plan, pushed hard for the Senate passage of the measure and is expected to become deeply involved in the House-Senate bargaining for a final bill.

“[President] Bush on Friday got a phone call from his boss, Mexican President Vicente Fox, who is in California on the last day of a US tour, and praised Bush’s efforts to push for legalized status for some immigrants,” says political analyst Mike Baker.

Fox is deeply troubled by the amount of resistance to the Senate giveaway. The Mexican President hopes to continue sending his poor, his mentally ill and his criminals to the United States, thereby relieving the Mexican government of the expenses incurred for providing social services for his people. Instead, the Senate bill will be the largest redistribution of wealth strategy since President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society.”

The only difference is, according to observers, the wealth is being redistributed to another country — Mexico — and it’s the American people who will foot the bill while lawmakers in Washington take the credit and garner the votes.

Bush and Fox discussed the effort to secure the border and boost economic prosperity in both countries, said Frederick Jones, spokesman for the White House National Security Council. Of course, President Fox opposes fences or walls. He opposes using the National Guard to assist the Border Patrol agents. He opposes penalties against companies that employ illegal aliens. He opposes restrictions on funneling US dollars into his country. And he refuses to allow his troops — which are already on the border helping drug traffickers and human smugglers — to help in controlling the illegal aliens entering the US.

Critics called the guest worker idea an amnesty that rewards people who broke US laws. But supporters said it was not forgiving anyone because people would have to pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English and meet other requirements to get on the citizenship track. By contrast, the House in December passed a tough border security and enforcement measure that would make being in the United States illegally a felony instead of a misdemeanor..

Sensenbrenner said any bill that emerges out of negotiations between the House and the Senate would have to concentrate on securing the nation’s leaky borders and punishing employers who hire illegal immigrants.

“With the border controls and the enforcement of employer sanctions, the jobs for illegal immigrants will dry up,” Sensenbrenner told Fox News Channel on Friday.

“And if you can’t get a job because employer sanctions are enforced, my belief is is that a lot of the illegal immigrants will simply go back home voluntarily.”

The House bill has sparked protests around the country from Hispanic groups and their supporters. But the tough Sensenbrenner said he would not accept the Senate’s position. In fact, following the rallies and protests by illegal aliens — which were organized by radical groups — more American became concerned over the problem of illegal immigration.

“It seems to me that what we need to do is to figure out a way, short of amnesty, to deal with the labor needs of the American economy,” Sensenbrenner said. “And if the Senate gets off of the dime of pushing for amnesty, even though they call it something different, then I think there’s room for negotiation.”

Bush, mindful of the growing clout of Hispanic voters, has long supported immigration reform and has said he backs a comprehensive approach along the lines of the Senate bill. But the issue deeply divides Republicans and many believe it is an important issue for them in this year’s congressional elections.

Recent polls show growing public dissatisfaction with the Republican majority. Many lawmakers say Bush will have to become deeply involved in the bargaining if a final bill is to be agreed upon before the November elections, when Democrats hope to make big gains. Even African-Americans overwhelmingly oppose amnesty for illegal aliens saying it takes money away from programs designed to help poor American citizens.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said on Friday that lawmakers were staking out their positions ahead of House-Senate negotiations and he thought there was broad support for the president’s stand.

“I get the very clear sense from leadership in both houses that they want to get something done,” Snow said. “This is not an issue to be dragged past election day. They want to get something done.”

Snow is correct, but the bill passed by the Senate is not what most Americans had in mind when they demanded immigration reform.

Some provisions in the Senate bill are viewed as out-and-out unjust. For instance, those illegal aliens who perpetrated identity theft and used the fraudulent ID for paying into the Social Security system, will still be eligible for benefits. Meanwhile, Americans who perpetrated the same crime are doing hard time in our nation’s prisons, according to one dissatisfied congressional staffer.

Conservatives angrily state that they hope the House Republicans “squash” the Senate bill. Better yet, they say, it should be dead-on-arrival.

Discuss This Article

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance ( He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com.  He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.  His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at


By Don Laigle


Foreword: When I was growing up, satirists would never have thought of prefacing a satire by saying: this is a satire. But then, the NEA hadn’t been quietly dumbing us down either for generations. Nowadays, thanks in large part to that wonderful group, education is at low ebb, and I think there is less understanding of literary genres and devices. So to avert a flood of negative emails from people who actually take this at face value, THE FOLLOWING IS A SATIRE! DON’T TAKE IT AT FACE VALUE. Having said that, do indeed take the warning seriously. No one in my generation could have ever predicted the absolute absurdity of today’s liberal politics. Look for more to come. Here is a foretaste. It CAN happen here.


After listening intently to the President’s speech on illegal immigration, I felt all kind of strange down inside. I can’t explain it, and I don’t know exactly when it happened, but at some point that night, I “got it.” You know?


I understood that our whole idea of law as we know it in America is hopelessly antiquated, based as it is on rigid ideology. It is un-Christian and disgusting. Think about it.


I mean, imagine anyone wanting to deny poor Mexicans the right to deny poor Americans jobs!


The problem is: while laws are in themselves ok, I guess, the sticking point is enforcement. It is harsh and inhumane. Police with guns, forcing people to obey the law under penalty of incarceration rather than sweetly encouraging them, in a Christian manner, to obey it, providing positive incentives in lieu of negative warnings and punishments. That’s just not right. And our visionary president provided a glimpse of what the Law can be in a bright and shining future for America.


That night as I lay in my bed, I had this wonderful dream of a more-perfect world where people of all nations, colors, sexual orientations and creeds (except evangelical Christians, of course) who stray would be treated as Americans, not as criminals.


In my fantastic dream, it is 2025, or as we then say, the year of our Hillary 17, and the Senate of our nation has just put together a new bill to humanize the morally challenged who come into conflict with our laws. The bill deals with what we in the unenlightened first part of the 21st century commonly refer to as car thieves. The problem of illegal automobile appropriations, as it is now sensitively called, has burgeoned. One in every 3 American adults has lost a car through illegal car appropriation. The illegal appropriators are the poor: that is, women, Hispanics, people of color (sensitively referred to now only as non-whites), Asians, cross dressers, homosexuals, Muslims, government-approved mainstream reporters, government employees and college profs. Our definition of “poor” is in accordance with the Hillarian language code, that is, it is divorced from economics and is based solely on race, sexual orientation and government mandate, as it should be. The poor who illegally appropriate, own and drive cars are called “guest drivers.”


There are two types of forbidden: mere “forbidden,” which applies to conventional banned behavior such as illegal appropriation of goods (the word “stealing” now applies solely to corporate crimes committed to white males), and “strictly forbidden,” which applies to crimes like illegally recovering illegally appropriated property and offending the poor.


One major problem is: there is still a significant, though small, voting bloc of conservatives who insist that if the problem of illegal appropriation is not controlled, it may lead to a hardship on the rich (defined as any white heterosexual male with views not approved by the Benevolent Government), who are now obligated to provide 90% of the income of the poor in entitlements under the Economic Justice Act of 2010. Hence, so it is reasoned, their hardship is a hardship on the already sputtering economy.


Therefore, to avert a general walkout of the rich from their vital positions in our economy, a new bill has been introduced to get a handle on illegal automobile appropriations. It is general knowledge that the bill will pass, since both parties now agree on everything in our wonderful new harmonious America where all thought and behavior is centrally regulated.


Senator Patty Kennedy (Patrick Kennedy’s niece) sums up the feeling of the American majority (not counting the antisocial opinion of the ultra-conservative rich), discussing the new bill on her web site:


“Senators (so and so on the Republican side) and (so and so on the Democrat side) introduce the Secure America and Orderly Car Appropriation Act of 2025. The legislation follows months of thoughtful debate and negotiation, which has resulted in bipartisan, bicameral, comprehensive parking lot security and automobile appropriation reform.


“As Senator McJohn has said ‘These are people who have broken the law and must be punished.’ That’s why, in this tough new bill, we are proposing that anyone who as appropriated a car illegally will be made to pay a fine of at least 10% of the value of the car in its present condition, pass a grueling 3 week driving course (at least one hour per week) and take a test proving that they can at least bring the car to a full stop. This tough test is to be administered by federally certified instructors. Anyone failing it will be given a provisional license only, which will expire within one year of the issue date, and will not be re-issued under any circumstances unless the holder can prove proficiency with another test equivalent to the one they failed. In the event the license holder should fail that test, they will be given only a provisional license good for 2 years (to speed up the process). And so on. In this tough bill,10 billion dollars in federal funding is to be provided for free auto insurance to the illegal appropriators.


“Another aspect of the bill is a crackdown on legitimate car owners who leave their cars unprotected on the street, requiring tough restrictions on car security. Another $10 billion is appropriated for research on car security measures and devices and psychological research into why people leave their cars unlocked after parking, to be submitted to public bidding.


“Finally, to be fully comprehensive, the bill also calls for providing sensitivity training to legitimate car owners to help them understand that no one really owns anything and why that is so. $20 billion will be appropriated for psychologists’ fees in administering this sensitivity training ($10 billion for the PhDs who train the lower-level psychologists and $10 billion to the actual field psychologists).


“Of course, at the same time, we understand that there are many cars that legitimate car owners won’t drive. Therefore, to fill the need for more guest drivers, the bill calls for an increase in the number of cars appropriated from the current level of 20 million this year to 25 million next year.


“We concur with the President, who said in his televised address on May 13 of this year:


‘There are voices out there saying that these are illegal car appropriators and they need to have their illegally owned cars taken away from them and returned to their rightful owners.


‘We can’t return 20 million cars. It’s unrealistic, and it’s unethical. Families would lose their incomes. These car appropriators are just human beings looking for a better way of life. We need to reach out to them with compassion. It’s good for the soul.’


“Alaska is to be sold back to the Russians to pay for the appropriations under this bill, since the poor are mostly on public assistance and we now have very few non-rich in the working force.”


“We are encouraged by the enormous strides made in this area by the Bush administration in concert with the Senate in 2006, when Americans were made to understand, by law, that the notion of sovereignty is no longer appropriate to modern times when no one can claim borders any longer. Likewise, we believe the American people will soon understand the wrong-headedness of private property. Ownership will soon go the way of sovereignty. I and my Democrat colleagues, along with many forward-looking Republican Senators, will not rest until that psychologically harmful concept is dead and buried once and for all.”


I woke with a start. Someone was breaking into my car. My first impulse was to confront them. Then I smiled to myself and said to myself “not tonight!” Unfortunately, my wife woke up too, and without hesitation, grabbed the shotgun and ran to the door. The would-be automobile appropriator fled on foot. I felt so terribly bad for this unfortunate poor person. What terrible economic hardship could have prompted him to break into my car? My wife, who didn’t hear the President’s speech, doesn’t “get it” yet. I will be patient and pray for her.


Our compassionately conservative President has paved the way for the demise of our overly comfortable way of life where the rich gouge their comfort out of the backs of the poor and where sovereignty trumps human rights. Law and order will be a thing of the past, thank goodness. Then we will all live in a more peaceable, more sensitive world where no one in government can interfere with aberrant human behavior.


All I can say to those reactionaries out there who cling to the traditional ideas of law and order, and private ownership, is this:


Your days as ultra-conservative capitalists are truly numbered.

Justice for all is just around the corner.


And you are not part of that all!





Legal Services Corporation Turns its Back on Men

by Carey Roberts


Chances are you don’t pay much attention to the Legal Services Corporation, a hold-over from the glory days of the Great Society. This bureaucracy ekes by on $335 million in federal money – chump change by Washington standards.


The LSC was created for a good purpose: to provide legal services so poor Americans could have their day in court. But while taxpayers and lawmakers looked the other way, the Legal Services Corporation has fallen under the sway of a radical gender ideology.


The Journal of Family Psychology recently published a study that revealed wives and girlfriends are more likely to engage in domestic violence than their male partners. According to researcher Renee McDonald, 18.2% of the couples had experienced female-on-male violence, while male-on-female aggression was found in only 13.7% of partners.


This is not news. For the last 30 years, researchers have proven time and time again that women were at least as likely as men to commit acts of family violence. []


But to radical feminists, ideology always trumps the facts. This has real-world consequences.


When the Legal Services Corporation was created in 1974, the idea was to help poor people deal with absentee landlords and faceless welfare bureaucracies. But along came welfare reform in 1996, and the LSC suddenly found many of its clients were no longer in need of its services. Time for Plan B.


Plan B was to implement the radical feminist agenda. That agenda says domestic violence is the tool that brutish patriarchs wield to keep women in their place.


So at the LSC, the most common type of cases became family issues, “many of which involve securing protective order to keep spouses and children safe from domestic violence,” according to the LSC’s latest Annual Report. []


Drill down and the full truth emerges. Legal Service attorneys have “Represented battered women seeking orders of protection, child support enforcement, and divorces from abusive spouses,” according to the LSC’s Press Kit.


What about battered men seeking orders of protection?


The LSC website reveals many examples of taxpayer money being used to represent women claiming to be victims of abuse – but not a single example of its funds going to help abused men.


For example, Legal Services funds were used to establish a policy with the Texas Public Utility Commission so “when women meet with legal aid attorneys for protective orders, those same attorneys can also provide practical help in securing affordable shelter.”


That news appeared in the Winter 2005 issue of Equal Justice Magazine. Apparently its editors were oblivious to the irony of male victims of domestic violence being denied equal justice. []


The Legal Services Corporation website highlights the story of “Debra” in Minnesota, who claimed to be falsely accused of child abuse by her ex-husband. LSC attorneys succeeded in dismissing the protection order and returning the children to her custody. []


Apparently poor men are never subjected to false allegations of abuse, or at least are unworthy of receiving free legal services.


One of the LSC’s grant recipients is MidPenn Legal Services in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The firm’s latest annual report tells of Deborah Lucas who secured a protective order and won custody of her child. The report makes no mention of abused men being helped by MidPenn. []


Earlier this month, several Pennsylvania judges revealed that MidPenn and other local law firms are scripting the statements that women make to the courts to request restraining orders. This revelation was made to associates of the North Carolina-based True Equality Network. The judges expressed concern over the reluctance of local D.A.s to prosecute false claims of abuse, according to True Equality president Terri Lynn Tersak.


Pennsylvania’s sweeping domestic violence law includes, “Knowingly engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly committing acts toward another person, including following the person, without proper authority, under circumstances which place the person in reasonable fear of bodily injury.”


So a father who makes any effort to see his children could be accused of placing the mother in “fear,” thus putting the man at risk of being thrown in jail. As a result, caring, decent fathers have simply been cut off from seeing their own children.


Back in Washington DC, the future of the Legal Services Corporation looks bright, its financial health now secure.


Because the Violence Against Women Act, recently re-enacted by president Bush, now allows the LSC to provide services to all women who claim to be domestic violence victims, regardless of their immigration status. []


All aboard the domestic violence gravy train.


Discuss This Article


Carey Roberts is a Staff Writer for The New Media Alliance. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.


Columns by this author can be read regularly on

Jean-François Revel: How Democracies Perish

By Thomas E. Brewton

The late Jean-François Revel, writing 25 years ago, pegged exactly 
the self-defeating attitude of America’s liberal Republicans and 
Democrats: we are at fault when our enemies attack us; foreign 
enemies are simply a distraction from bestowing ever more welfare-
state entitlements without heed to their future cost.

Jean-François Revel, who died last week at the age of 82, was that 
exceedingly rare person: a French intellectual who didn’t despise the 
United States, an intellectual who understood the cancerous prognosis 
of liberalism.

Revel’s 1983 “How Democracies Perish” described liberalism’s 
debilitating effect on confronting the threat of domination by the 
Soviet Union.  His observations apply equally today in our long-term 
struggle against Islamic jihad.

Revel wrote about democracy, meaning societies unhinged from 
historical tradition, in which people come to accept the idea that a 
constitution is nothing more than the latest social-justice fad 
formulated by intellectuals.  That is a 20th century derangement, 
very different from what the Constitution instituted: a Federal 
republic with power divided between the states and the national 
government and split, within the national government, among the three 
main branches; a constitutional government designed to protect the 
rights of individuals against PC tyranny of the majority.

Regarding foreign enemies like the Soviet Union or today’s Islamic 
jihad, Revel observed that democracies are ill suited to deal with 
them: “Democracy tends to ignore, even deny, threats to its existence 
because it loathes doing what is necessary to counter them.”  Hence 
the chorus of campus liberals, and a few members of Congress, who 
declared that we deserved the 9/11 attacks, because of our 
“imperialism” and our failure to ratify the Kyoto environmental 
treaty.  Hence liberals demand now that we evacuate Iraq and place 
our fate in the tainted hands of the UN.

“What we end up with,” he wrote, “in what is conventionally called 
Western society is a topsy-turvy situation in which those seeking to 
destroy democracy appear to be fighting for legitimate aims, while 
its defenders are pictured as repressive reactionaries.  
Identification of democracy’s internal and external adversaries with 
the forces of progress, legitimacy, even peace, discredits and 
paralyzes the efforts of people who are only trying to preserve their 

About the effects of post-Vietnam liberal recrimination, he wrote: 
“….Civilizations losing confidence in themselves: an old story in 
history….[when citizens stop believing in themselves] civilization 
must choose between suicide and servitude.”  Liberal suicide, or 
Islamic sharia.

Revel accurately characterized what has been in process on college 
campuses for generations, producing a dismaying number of future 
voters who hate the United States and cheer the death of our military 
personnel.  “….Self-criticism is, of course, one of the vital 
springs of democratic civilization….But constant self-condemnation, 
often with little or no foundation, is a source of weakness and 
inferiority in dealing with…a power that has dispensed with such 
scruples…. Exaggerated self-criticism would be a harmless luxury of 
civilization if there were no enemy at the gate condemning 
democracy’s very existence.”

As Osama Bin Ladin has affirmed repeatedly in his messages, Islamic 
jihadists see this only as contemptible weakness that invites 
increased aggression.  Our enemies care nothing about liberals’ 
French Revolutionary “Rights of Man.”  They respect only the power 
that grinds their faces in the dust.  President Clinton’s treating 
bombings of our embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole as 
criminal matters to be handled by the FBI, instead of acts of war, 
led directly to 9/11.

Even if we muster sufficient backbone to resist Islamic jihad, 
liberal Republicans and Democrats will be undermining our future from 
within by loading more free services onto an economy unable to 
fulfill even it existing commitments under Social Security and Medicare.

Regarding that, Revel wrote: “..[What the quest for economic equality 
produces] is the growing role of government, the modern government of 
which democracy’s children ask everything and from which they 
consequently accept everything. ….  Tocqueville the visionary 
predicted [in his 1833 “Democracy in America”] with stunning 
precision the coming ascension of the omnipresent, omnipotent and 
omniscient state the twentieth-century man knows so well: the state 
as protector, entrepreneur, educator; the physician-state, impresario-
state, bookseller-state, helpful and predatory, tyrant and guardian, 
banker, father and jailer all at once…..Its power borders on the 
absolute partly because it is scarcely felt, having increased by 
imperceptible stages at the wish of its subjects, who turned to it 
instead of to each other.  In those pages by Tocqueville we find the 
germ both of George Orwell’s “1984” and David Riesman’s “The Lonely 

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. 
The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of 
writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776

Email comments to

The Socialist International: Model for the UN

By Thomas E. Brewton

The UN is based on the ideas and goals of the three major Socialist 
Internationals, and its ineffectiveness is a function of the inherent 
flaws of the Internationals.  Current campaign rhetoric of the 
Democratic Party, driven by its left-wing extremists, parrots the 
doctrines of the Socialist Internationals.

The concept of the United Nations springs from the utopian doctrine 
of socialism and was first manifested in the efforts of socialists to 
create and sustain Socialist Internationals.

Socialism from its beginnings presumed to be a universal religion 
based on atheistic materialism.  Henri de Saint-Simon, its first 
codifier, wrote “The New Christianity,” acknowledging that socialism 
had to be more than a mechanical economic doctrine, that it had to 
become the cultural supplanter of Christianity, which was the 
unifying principle of Western civilization.  His colleague and 
successor Auguste Comte created The Religion of Humanity, something 
akin to ethical humanism.  Comte confidently expected that his 
religion would be so compellingly rational that everyone in the world 
would come to France to study under him and implement his 
promulgations of right conduct.

The universal religious pretension of socialism rests upon the 
assumptions that only physical labor produces value, that the workers 
of the world are the source of all the world’s valuable output, and 
that the capitalists, labor’s class-war enemy, have stolen what 
rightfully belongs to labor, calling it profit.

This accounts, of course, for liberalism’s cohabitation with labor 
unions and for the identification of labor unions historically with 
socialism and anarchism.

 From this comes the doctrinal tenet that the only truly unifying 
world-principle is the socialistic brotherhood of the workers, which 
transcends national borders.  Socialism postulates that spiritual 
matters such as patriotism, family and clan loyalty, and principles 
of morality are fictions created by the capitalist masters to 
subjugate the workers.

These beliefs were the impetus for organizing the Socialist 
Internationals, which were organizations for mutual support among 
socialist parties in different nations in order to promote the 
political triumph of socialism.  The first of them was organized by 
Karl Marx in 1864, near the end of of the American Civil War.  The 
Second International was formed after Marx’s death in 1889, and the 
Third International (the Comintern), by Lenin in 1919.

A common feature of the three major Socialist Internationals was 
their belief that wars are entirely the product of capitalist 
maneuvering for monopolistic control of markets.  Therefore, by 
abstaining from work and from military service, socialists around the 
world could prevent wars and bring about an era of unending world peace.

This accounts for American socialists’ resistance to our entry into 
World War I and for the creation of the ACLU to defend them.  We see 
its echoes in today’s liberal tactic of mass street demonstrations, 
riots, and general strikes, here and abroad, against the Vietnam war 
and now against our military response to Islamic jihad.

In the vein of Socialist Internationalism, liberals today presume 
that all rational people everywhere in the world (except for ignorant 
Christians and religious Jews) think as they do and that, therefore, 
foreign-policy disagreements can be worked out and wars prevented 
simply by getting everybody together for nicely-nicely discussions in 
the mass-meeting hall of the UN General Assembly.

Military action to protect our national interests can only be a 
continuation of monopolistic tactics by “the rich” to seize control 
of Iraq’s oil and to benefit Halliburton.  In their view, the Islamic 
“freedom fighters” are analogs of the oppressed workers of the world 
whose work product has been stolen by the capitalists.  Settling Al 
Queda’s grievances is therefore merely a matter of giving them a 
bigger share of our materialistic wealth.

Reviewing the unbroken record of failure to sustain effective, 
voluntary cooperation in the Socialist Internationals and in the 
League of Nations and the UN suggests, however, that these 
fundamental liberal tenets are delusions.

Attempting to get world unanimity on specific diplomatic action is a 
fool’s errand.  Even the socialists in their Internationals, 
supposedly united by their brotherhood in labor, were continually at 
each other’s throats.

The First International broke up in a fight between Marx’s doctrines 
and the anarchism of Mikhail Bakunin.  The Second International 
disintegrated in 1914 at the start of World War I, when national 
socialist parties mostly ignored the call to abandon their national 
patriotism and boycott or sabotage the war effort.  The Third 
International (Comintern) was held together only by the iron hands of 
Lenin and Stalin and the Soviet army.

Experience in the UN has been of a similar kind.  Only at the end of 
World War II, before the Cold War, was there any degree of apparent 
unity.  With the explosion of UN membership in the 1950s, as newly-
minted, small, and economically dependent African and other nations 
became members, the UN degenerated into a propaganda organ and an 
undercover dispenser of graft for the Soviet Union and its socialist 
allies.  Under-the-table bribes to these nations to secure their 
votes in the General Assembly became the order of the day.  
Ultimately, as we saw in the Iraqi food-for-oil scandal, the 
corruption of the UN reached greater financial proportions than ever 
before in history.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. 
The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of 
writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776

Email comments to viewfrom1776@thomasbrewtoncom

The Young Pay the Price for Dutch Drug Experiment

 by Don Hank

 Ever hear a liberal or libertarian say that we need to legalize “soft” drugs like cocaine and marijuana because they did this in Holland and it was wildly successful? You know: kids immediately lost interest in these drugs and stopped taking them?

 Here’s what Republican Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico said on CNN on Feb 22, 2001: 

 “Holland has 60 percent the drug use as that of the United States by kids and adults and that’s for hard drugs and marijuana both. So if you want to look at a country that really has rational drug policy, Holland would not suggest that it would be a worse alternative than what we’ve currently got.” 

 Gary was referring to the fact that Holland had legalized soft drugs and was implying that it wouldn’t hurt American kids a bit to have these drugs available. He was apparently trying to appear “progressive.”

He was not the only one.  

The web is awash with the same kind of conclusions, drawn by liberals and libertarians, that drug use must be legalized because drug laws are antiquated and the more we enforce them, the more drugs kids will use. In fact, a quick search shows that the number of sites that agree with this hypothesis far outweighs the number that don’t [1], [2], [3]. Guess we old fogies need to stop holding up progress, then, right? 

I love it when objective information proves what people with common sense knew in the first place. On May 6, the web site for the Dutch paper Volkskrant ran an article on a group of mothers in Holland who are concerned about their kids’ drug habits. Seems drugs are out of control there. Surprise surprise! 

The writer says (my translation): 

“One out of every 20 kids has at least experimented with hard drugs such as cocaine [note that they admit this drug is not soft!] or xtc. Coke is becoming more and more popular as a starting drug. The mothers have nothing good to say about regular social services, which are usually located too far away.” 

The article ends with: 

“ ‘The problem is a major one and is prevalent everywhere’ says Bak [one of the moms interviewed]. She gets calls from mothers from all over the region with the same stories. Kids of 12 or 13 who deceive their own parents. School kids tell her that the lockers at the high schools are sold to dealers so that they can deal from them.”  

Notice that it seems not to have occurred to any of the mothers to call for making these drugs illegal. They only call for help from mothers themselves tackling the problem. You see: banning drugs is now a dead issue in that part of Europe (and may soon be in other parts as well). There can be no reasonable discussion of legalization of soft drugs. That is “settled law.”

Does this sound like the “enlightened” Europeans are years ahead of us? More progressive? Just remove the barriers and kids will follow their good instincts? Kids only do things that are forbidden, and since cocaine isn’t forbidden in Holland any more, kids will stop taking it, right? 

Christians know that man is born in sin. He does not have the sweet nature that European philosophers believe he does. In “L’éducation d’Emile,” Jean Jacques Rousseau recommends letting kids do whatever they want to when they are very young. For example, he says that it is foolish to tell a child not to break a window. The child should be allowed to break one so that he can see that breaking windows is not a good thing.  

Today’s Europe is proof enough that trusting in human nature simply doesn’t work. And that whenever people try social experiments, it is the young who pay the heaviest price. 

 Truly it can be said of Europe: eyes they have but they do not see (Psalms 115: 5).




A Liberal’s Definition of Liberalism

By Thomas E. Brewton

Professor Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., is a highly regarded liberal 
icon.  His views of American liberalism in the 20th century reflect 
the domination of our nation’s political and social mores by liberal-
socialism between the end of World War II and the Vietnam War.

Professor Schlesinger’s views on American liberalism are backed by 
strong credentials.  He was a Harvard history professor, twice winner 
of the Pulitzer Prize for works of history, the author of one of the 
definitive studies of the New Deal, and a member of President John F. 
Kennedy’s White House staff.

In “The Vital Center” (1949) and “The Politics of Hope” (1963) 
Schlesinger depicts American political liberalism as a moderate and 
responsible mean between a failed conservatism and a revolutionary, 
radical socialism.  He sees Teddy Roosevelt’s New Nationalism, 
Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom, and Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal as 
parts of a Progressive continuum aimed at bringing politics back to a 
compromise center.  On balance Schlesinger sees liberalism as the 
party of hope, of commitment to change to meet the problems created 
by ongoing economic and scientific change.

This, of course, is the picture espoused by liberals even today, when 
their goals and methods have become considerably more radical than in 
the 1950s and early 1960s.

Schlesinger rejects the 1920s purer socialism that coalesced around 
the views of John Dewey and Thorstein Veblen, who wanted 
revolutionary changes (not necessarily by violent means) in the 
nature of society, with social and economic order planned and 
directed by a central government elite on purely rational 
principles.  Those of the Dewey-Veblen tradition, Schlesinger says, 
were disappointed that the New Deal did not go far enough.

Schlesinger says that liberalism is not socialism, because it rejects 
the “…classical connotation of state ownership of the basic means 
of production and distribution.”

This, however, is an intellectually dishonest dodge.  Henri de Saint-
Simon and Auguste Comte, who first codified socialism as a coherent 
doctrine, explicitly identified government regulation alone as both 
the essential element of socialism, and as sufficient to effect it.  
The social engineering mechanisms they proposed were precisely the 
sort that were imposed directly or indirectly in the 1930s New Deal 
and subsequently: a managed currency; control of farm output and 
prices; regulation of industrial output, prices, and wage rates; 
steeply-graduated income tax rates; welfare-state benefits, and, 
above all, PC control of education, so that only liberal doctrine 
might be taught.

Moreover, the central theological goal of classical socialism, as 
well as today’s American liberalism, is egalitarianism, and state 
ownership is no more than one possible means of effecting equal 
distribution of property.  Political liberalism, especially since the 
1960s, is focused squarely on egalitarianism (e. g., emphasis on 
“fairness” in taxation, denunciation of “tax breaks for the rich,” 
fixation on poverty, multi-cultural education, and affirmative action).

In the middle 1800s, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Schlesinger says, saw the 
basic difference between conservatism and liberalism as that between 
the party of the past and the party of the future, the party of 
memory and the party of hope.  Emerson’s vision clearly was a utopian 
one based partly on Victorian optimism in perfectibility of man and 
society as a product of the growth of scientific knowledge, as well 
as a reflection of German Idealistic philosophy.  Yet, contradicting 
himself, Schlesinger specifically rejects utopianism as part of the 
liberal philosophy and says that liberals in mid-20th century, for 
example, Reinhold Niebuhr, recognized the reality of human imperfection.

Schlesinger’s image is that “…Liberalism in America has been a 
party of social progress rather than of intellectual doctrine, 
committed to ends rather than to methods.”  Laissez-faire was good 
when Jefferson introduced it; regulation was good when Franklin 
Roosevelt implemented it.  “The ideological content of American 
liberalism has been less coherent than its political and 
administrative evolution.”

Experience, however, belies this picture.  Schlesinger’s liberalism 
is a purely mechanical construct aimed at superficial political rules 
of conduct, without any moral content (e.g., the liberal push for 
absolutely unrestricted speech, no matter what is said, even if it is 
a call by socialists and anarchists for violent overthrow of the 
Constitution, and liberals’ push to remove any vestige of religion 
from public life).

As he says, liberals are concerned with political results, not 
ideology.  But far from a realistic pragmatism of the theoretical 
John Dewey sort, in practice liberal government creates gigantic 
regulatory bureaucracies whose inherent dynamic is self-perpetuation 
and self-aggrandizement, bureaucracies that become special interest 
groups themselves, whose constituencies’ votes have been purchased by 
liberals’ dispensation of tax revenues from the conservative middle 
class (bourgeoisie).

Claims to moral high ground in Schlesinger’s variety of liberalism 
have two problems: (1) the moral concepts used to justify 
liberalism’s preoccupation with ends rather than means are Christian 
morality, not liberal socialist doctrine; (2) in practice, without a 
religious, moral rudder, New Deal regulatory government has turned 
into “pluralistic democracy,” a system based on every interest group 
seeking to maximize its own personal wants, motivated by pure greed, 
without a unifying concept of the public good in the sense of the 
Constitution’s preamble.

By definition, in a liberal society that eschews value judgments, 
there can be no principle other than raw political power upon which 
to make choices between competing public demands.  As long as the 
mechanical procedures of “democracy” are observed, literally anything 
goes.  The Federal judiciary can arbitrarily demote certain 
fundamental rights, such as the Bill of Rights protection of private 
property, to secondary status (an action that is an unacknowledged 
value judgement).

Liberalism discards Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” operating through 
individuals guided by religious morality under a constitutional 
government, substituting collectivized license under a government in 
which “value judgments” are permitted only when they conform to 
current liberal ideas. Such a government can be no more than a 
registrar of fleeting public opinion and momentary political power.

New Deal liberalism transformed the media, by default, into the the 
creator and shaper of public morality.  Whatever “wrong” the media 
chooses to publicize and whatever “remedy” it chooses to support 
tends to become public opinion.  As Supreme Court Justice Oliver 
Wendell Holmes (and Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels) said, 
there being no independent standards of truth or morality, truth is 
whatever wins out in the marketplace.  And when public opinion in 
that sense is the mode of government, with no value placed on a 
conservative respect for morality, religion, and tradition, we are 
under the sway of Tocqueville’s tyranny of the majority.

This, of course, is the process we have seen recently when throngs 
block public streets to demand “constitutional rights” for illegal 

Liberal socialism worked in the 1930s and after World War II purely 
on the momentum of past cultural morality and religion, but lost its 
mooring in the 1960s with the new generation of students that 
understood nothing of the past and had no connection with its 
cultural traditions.

Today’s young adults and children have reverted to a pre-civilization 
state of nature, Thomas Hobbes’s war of all against all.  Liberalism 
has come to mean unfettered materialism and hedonism, the more 
disgusting and degraded the better.  Far from being Professor 
Schlesinger’s theoretical, moderate center between conservatism and 
radical socialism, liberalism has become synonymous with any action 
or doctrine that tends to destroy existing standards of morality and 

Liberalism is moving rapidly toward nihilism, the “anything goes”  
doctrine of Mikhail Bakunin aimed at freedom in the sense of removing 
all restrictions on thought and action.  The measures for that 
purpose, some of which are now being employed by liberals, are 
obliteration of God and religion, along with destruction of private 
property, marriage, and moral codes, all aimed at letting personal 
sensual gratification be the only guide to conduct and thought.

That is hedonistic license, not liberty of the sort understood in the 
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. 
The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of 
writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776

Email comments to

John Kenneth Galbraith: Statist Advocate

By Thomas E. Brewton

Widely known economist John Kenneth Galbraith, who recently died at 
age 97, was one of the radical left’s most articulate and prolific 
advocates for state control of economic and social activity.

Living through most of the 20th century, Professor Galbraith was the 
embodiment of the era’s atheistic and materialistic religion of 
socialism, a description he proudly accepted.  Naturally, he was a 
member of the Harvard economics department, the fountainhead of 
socialistic economics in the United States.  From early 20th century 
Progressivism, to open advocacy of socialism in the 1920s and 1930s, 
through post-World War II liberalism, he was probably the most quoted 
and most admired single icon of American left-wing intellectuals.

The Washington Post’s obituary observed:  “One of the most 
influential [of Galbraith’s books] was “The Affluent Society” (1958), 
which argued that overproduction of consumer goods was harming the 
public sector and depriving Americans of such benefits as clean air, 
clean streets, good schools and support for the arts.

“Dr. Galbraith was generally considered to have been an apostle of 
the theories advanced by British economist John Maynard Keynes: that 
government could promote full employment and a stable economy by 
stimulating spending and investment with adjustments in interest and 
tax rates, and deficit financing.”

Galbraith’s self-assurance not withstanding, Keynes’s prescriptions 
failed miserably; unemployment never fell below 14% until our 
military mobilization for World War II.

Professor Galbraith was called an economist, but more accurately he 
should be identified as a liberal sociologist and propagandist.  Few 
of his “economic” ideas are used or respected by economists.  Even 
the New York Times, the journal-of-record for American socialism, 
admits this.

As the Times obituary put it, “… other economists, even many of his 
fellow liberals, did not generally share his views on production and 
consumption, and he was not regarded by his peers as among the top-
ranked theorists and scholars.”

“…..Later, in “The New Industrial State” (1967), he tried to trace 
the shift of power from the landed aristocracy through the great 
industrialists to the technical and managerial experts of modern 
corporations. He called for a new class of intellectuals and 
professionals to determine policy.”

“……In 1973 he published “Economics and the Public Purpose,” in 
which … [he] called for a “new socialism,” with more steeply 
progressive taxes; public support of the arts; public ownership of 
housing, medical and transportation facilities; and the conversion of 
some corporations and military contractors into public corporations.”

Michael Harrington, then head of the American Socialist Party, wrote 
in his 1968 “Toward a Democratic Left: A Radical Program for a New 

“The very character of modern technology, [Harvard economist] 
Galbraith says, renders the old market mechanisms obsolete.  In these 
circumstances planning is obligatory.  The state must manage the 
economy in order to guarantee sufficient purchasing power to buy the 
products of the industrial system.”

This is typical Galbraithian “wisdom” that, at best, was counter-
productive and more often disastrous.

Harrington’s book was published as price levels were quadrupling 
under President Nixon’s embrace of Keynesian, socialist economics, 
leading OPEC to impose its oil embargo and catapult prices to an 
inflation-adjusted $95 per barrel.  On the eve of this unfolding 
catastrophe, the liberal media lauded the Keynesian-oriented Council 
of Economic Advisors for having finally learned to exert perfect, 
fine-tuning socialistic control over the economy.

Economic stagflation – soaring inflation coupled with a moribund 
economy – soon thereafter revealed the hollowness of this hubristic 
claim.  Savings and loan institutions went bankrupt.  Stock market 
prices fell to fractions of replacement costs for company assets, 
giving rise to the take-over boom by stock market raiders that 
dismembered companies and threw long-loyal workers into the streets.  
Mothers were compelled to leave home for full-time employment and 
fathers had to moonlight on extra jobs, just to pay monthly bills.  
With fewer parents at home to supervise their children, crime and 
drug abuse rose.

Yet to this day Galbraith’s ruinous prescriptions remain central 
tenets of American liberals’ socialistic religious catechism.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. 
The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of 
writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776

Email comments to